Supreme Court of India
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 915
- Decided
- 11 December 2015
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S KHEHAR
Holding
The 2009 ACR is not a valid assessment and cannot be used, but other material and the Full Court resolution sufficiently justify the premature retirement under Rule 24.
Summary
The petitioner, a District & Sessions Judge, challenged his premature retirement order issued under Rule 24 of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, which relied on an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2009 that rated him "Average". The Supreme Court held that the 2009 ACR was not a genuine assessment because it was based solely on the petitioner’s failure to submit a self‑assessment report and therefore could not be treated as evidence of his work or conduct. However, the Court found that the High Court’s Administrative Committee and Full Court had examined other material – past service record, complaints, and the Full Court resolution of 3 June 2013 – which together justified the premature retirement. Consequently, the order of retirement was upheld despite the invalidity of the 2009 ACR. The Court also directed the High Court to release the petitioner’s retirement benefits within four months, subject to submission of pension papers. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Annual Confidential Report for 2009 as an assessment for premature retirement under Rule 24.
- Whether the non‑submission of a self‑assessment report renders the ACR void.
- Whether the order of premature retirement can be sustained in the absence of the 2009 ACR.
- The adequacy of other material and the Full Court resolution in justifying premature retirement.
- The entitlement of the petitioner to retirement benefits pending pension formalities.
Subjects
premature retirementHigher Judicial Service RulesRule 24Annual Confidential Reportself‑assessment reportjudicial officer assessmentpublic interestutility of judicial officerpension benefits
Judgment
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 250
A SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA
. v.
STATE OF JAM MU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (C) No. 355 of 2014)
B
DECEMBER 11, 2015
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 - r.24 - Premature
c retirement - Of judicial officer - On the basis of his Annual
Confidential Reports, past records and other relevant
material - Held: The Annual Confidential Report which
formed the basis of premature retirement cannot be said to
be a report in the eyes of law not being truthful assessment
o of the various constituents of the judicial officer's work and
conduct - However, other considerations, apart from the
Annual Confidential Reports, were sufficient justifying the
premature retirement in terms of r.24 when read in
conjunction with Full Court Resolution of High Court -
E Judicial Service.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The annual confidential report from
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 cannot be treated as an
F assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner.
No assessment whatsoever was made at the hands of
the Administrative Judge,. insofar as the above annual
·confidential report is concerned. The above report being
not a truthful assessment of the various constituents of
G the judicial officer's work and conduct, it could certainly
not be taken as an assessment of his work for the period
from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. Most of the columns of the
proforma prescribed for recording the an·nual
H confidential report, could have been filled up, even in
250
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 251
KASHMIR
absence of the "self-assessment report". The annual .A
confidential report being bereft of any assessment of
the work and conduct of the petitioner for the period from
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as
no report, for all intents and purposes. In view of the
above conclusion, treating the work and c.onduct of the B
petitioner as "Average" for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012
on the basis of the report for the year 2009 is therefore,
also not sustainable in law. As such, none of the reports
of the petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) could have
been taken into consideration for the purpose of passing C
the order of premature retirement. [Paras 8, 12] [261 ·C·
D, F-G; 262-D-F; 264-G]
2. The Administrative Committee of the High Court
had examined the past record, annual confidential D
reports, work done statements, and other relevant record/
material pertaining to the petitioner, and had opined that
he had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. Thus,
in addition to the annual confidential reports, it was
concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and that, E
it was not in public interest to continue him in service. It
was also recorded, that credible complaints with regard
to his judicial work were being received periodically. On
the basis of the above consideration, it was felt that the
officer had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. F
In view of the consideration of the Full Court, in respect
of material other than the annual confidential report for
the year 2009 (and of the years 2010 to 2012), it is held
that there was sufficient material justifying the premature G
retirement of the petitioner in terms .of Rule 24, specially
when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court
resolution dated 3.6.2013. Even though the annual
confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2009 is
set aside, the non-submission of the '.'self-assessment H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A report" by the petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and
temperament. Therefore, the determination recorded in
the minutes of the Full Court on 3.6.2013 (even if the
consideration based on the annual confidential report
for the year 2009 is excluded) were sufficient to justify
B the order of premature retirement of the petitioner. [Paras
12-16] [264-C-D; 265-8-C, F-G; 266-E-F; 267-G-H; 268-
A]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition .(Civil)
c No(s).355of2014. ·
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
L. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Pallav Mongia
for the Petitioner.
D
Bharat Sangal, Ms. Srijana, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Mithu
Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The petitioner was
selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service
Commission for appointment to the Kashmir Civil Service
(Judicial) on 5.1.1987 .. He joined as Munsif (-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, First Class) at Basohli in District Kathua. He was
F thereafter promoted as a Subordinate Judge (-cum- Chief
Judicial Magistrate) on 18.11.1996. And thereafter, as an
adhoc District & Sessions Judge on 8.8.2002. While in the
cadre of District & Sessions Judge, he was placed in the
selection grade on 15.06.2011.
G
2. For the controversy in hand, some of the Annual
Confidential Reports recorded in respect of work and conduct
of the petitioner are important. A brief summary thereof is
recorded hereunder:
H
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 253
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
A
SI.No. Annual Confidential Reports Remarks
for the period
01. 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 Good
02. 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 Average B
03. 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 Average
04. 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005 Good
05. 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 Very Good
06. 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 Very Good
c
07. 2. 1.2009 to 31.12.2009 Average
3: So far as the present controversy is concerned, it
pertains to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
Compulsory retirement is regulated under the provisions of D
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 (issued vide SRO 339,
dated 27.10.2009, Law Department). Rule 24 of the aforesaid
rules pertains to the subject of premature retirement. The same
is being extracted hereunder:
E
"24. Premature retirement
The High Court shall assess and evaluate the record of
the memberS'Of the service for his/her continued utility
before he/she attains the age of 50 years, 55 years and
58 years by following the procedure for compulsory F
retirement under the service roles applicable to him/her
and if he/she is not found fit and eligible he/she will
compulsorily retire on his/her attaining the age of 50
years, 55 years and 58 years, as the case may be."
G
4. A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that it is open •
to the High Court to evaluate the record of a judicial officer,
before he attain~ the ages of 50, 55 and 58 years, for ordering
his premature retirement. In evaluating the record of the
concerned judicial officer, the High Court is to follow the H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules
applicable to him. In the event of a judicial officer being found
unfit to continue in service, it is open to the High Court to
prematurely retire him, on attaining the ages of 50,55 and 58
years.
B
5. In conjunction with the rule of premature retirement, it
is also essential for us to refer to the criteria/norms for continuity
in service after the ages of 50,55 and 58 years. The criteria/
norms were adopted by a resolution of the Full Court of the
c High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 3.6.2013. Some parts
of the resolution are relevant for the present controversy, and
are being extracted hereunder:
"While considering the cases of the Judicial Officers
for their continued utility in service at 50, 55 and 58 years
D
of age in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India
AIR 1993 SC 2493 and (2011) 10 SCC. I, the following
criteria/norms shall be taken into account by the High
E Court in its administrative capacity.
A. Assessment Standards:
FollowinQ are the factors to be taken j{Jto consideration
individually/collectively to assess the officer.
F 1. Over all past service record of the Officer shall be
examined and considered with emphasis on the last 5
years' record to assess his potential for continued utility
in the service beyond 50,55 and 58 years.
2. The quality of the judgments delivered by the officer,
G
whether or not assailed before the High Court, in suits,
appeals, Session cases, Revisions and other
proceedings during the past ten years of his service
tenure. The quality of judgments will be determined by
its content, the legal acumen it reveals, the nature of
H
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 255
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
approach adopted, the language employed and the A
results achieved etc. etc.
3. Rate of disposal of the case by the officer in the light
of the separate criteria prescribed by the High Court
for this purpose.
B
4. Material reflecting the character of the officer,
including the complaints, enquiries and vigilance reports
lodged against him. The fact that the officer was
superseded in the last promotion shall also be taken
into consideration. · c
B. Annual Confidential Reports (AC.Rs.)
1.General
a) The AC Rs for the last five years should be taken into
account. D
b) If the other record of the officer is at Variance with
AC Rs.
Provided, however-, that if the ACR of the officer for a
particular year has not been recorded or approved by E
the High Court, as can be the situation in case of a
deputationist, the other record of the officer for that year
would be considered for rating him.
2. Special Considerations: ·F
A Judicial Officer shall be permitted to continue beyond/
50, 55 and 58 years of age if he fulfills the following'
/
conditions:
i) The Officer has on the basis of the· prescribed criteria G
earned seventy five per cent or more ('/'>:Grading) of
his total ACR entries in 'Very Good' or 'Good' gradings.
ii) If the officer has not earned any adverse or average
entry in his AC Rs after his last promotion.
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A C. Other relevant factors:
Besides above standard and recording of ACR,
following factors shall also be taken into account while
evaluating all round potential of the officer:
B i). His integrity, honesty and judicial conduct shall be
kept in view and utmost importance be attached;
ii). His relations with the Bar and his administrative
capacity should also be considered;
c iii). His dealing with the finance shall also be taken into
account while evaluating the all round potential of the
officer;
iv). The AC Rs shall not constitute the sole guiding factor
but shall be given due weightage along with other equally
D relevant factors;
v). The institutional integrity being in larger public interest
is the uppermost and shall be preferred to individual
interest.
E These are guidelines for internal use of the High Court.
However, it would not limit the power of the High Court
vested by Article 235 of the Constitution of India read
with Article 104 of the J&K Constitution."
F It is therefore apparent, that Rule 24 has to be read in
conjunction with the Resolution dated 3.6.2013, in order to
determine, whether or not a judicial officer should be
prematurely retired.
G 6. Before we venture to deal with the evaluation of the
record of the petitioner in terms of the Instructions/Resolution
dated 3.6.2013, it is imperative for us to notice, that the afore-
stated Resolution constituted the basis for determining the
retain-ability of the petitioner in service. In the Resolution dated
H 3.6.2013, emphasis was placed on the immediately preceding
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 257
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
. five years record, to assess the potentiality and utility of the A
employee under consideration. Likewise, the Instruction dated
3.6.2013, postulated in addition to the consideration of the
quality of his judgments, his institutional integrity in larger public
interest, his judicial conduct, his administrative capacity, the
rate of his disposal of cases, the character of the officer, the B
complaints, the enquiries and the vigilance reports lodged
against him, his.dealing with financial matters, and the like.
Since the issue of premature retirement of the petitioner came
up for consideration in the year 2013, mainly the annual
confidential reports for the years 2008 to 2012 were to be taken C
into consideration. In the summary, extracted hereinabove, it
is apparent, that for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008,
the petitioner was assessed as "Very Good", whereas for the
period 2.1.2009 to 31 .12.2009, he was assessed as D
"Average". In terms of the Resolution dated 3.6.2013 since
no annual confidential report was recorded after the year 2009,
assessment made for the previous year, i.e., for the year 2009
was taken into consideration as the assessment for the years
2010, 2011 and 2012. It is therefore, that the High Court arrived E
at the conclusion, that the work and conduct of the petitioner
was merely "Average", as his annual confidential report from
the year 2009 to the year 2012 reflected him and having been
graded as "Average".
7. The first question that arises for our consideration, is F
about the veracity of the Annual Confidential Report for the
period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. In fact, this was the.main
and emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. In the above report, the learned Administrative Judge G
on 29.05.2013 recorded as under:
"Note: It is being brought on record that when this Judicial
Officer did not choose to send his self Assessment ·
Report for year 2009 ending 31•1 December, 2009,
Registry was informed by the Secretary vide letter dated H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 06.10.2012 addressed to RIG asking him to send his
S.A.R. at the earliest and in turn he was duly informed
by Registry vide Commn. No.6474-80/GS dated
11.10.2012 which was received by him on 16.X.2012.
Despite that this Judical Officer has not cared to
B respond/comply with the direction. Even vide Commn.
No.2507/GS dated 24.5.2013, this Judicial Officer once
again has been asked by RIG to send his S.A.R. forthe
year 2009, but till date no response has been sent by
him, Keeping all these aspects into consideration, I am
c awarding hisA.C.R. as AVERAGE only.
Sci/-
Administrative Judge
29.5.013"
D It would be pertinent to mention, that a Annual Confidential
Report evaluates a judicial officer on a variety of aspects. To
highlij;lht the subjects on which an officer is assessed, it is
considered just and appropriate to extract hereunder relevant
parts of the annual confidential report of the petitioner, for the
E period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. This would also permit
a closer examination of the above report:
1. Knowledge of LalN & Procedure Since Self Assessment
Report has not been
sent by the Judicial
F Officer, I cannot
oomment upon it
2. Impression during inspection
.. (how he conducts the Coor!, his
behaviour with advocates and
G litigants, his clarity in
understanding and appreciating
the arguments adjudged from his
interaction with advocates during
arguments. Whether he is able to
dictate in Court, at least in
H miscellaneous applications).
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 259
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
A
3. Areas in which he was
counselled during inspection
4. 1$ he industrious and prompt in
the disposal of cases and has Average
be coped effectively with heavy .B
work?
5. Is he/she an efficient Judicial -do-
Officer
6. What is his/her reputation for
honesty, integrity and Average c
impartiality. Whether Very
Good, Average, Doubtful, bad
or positively lacking.
7. Remarks about his/.her attitude
towards his superiors,
D
subordinates and colleagues.
8. Behaviour towards members of
the Bar and the Public.
'9. Remarks about Administrative
capability. E
10. How is his/her reputation for
private life/character and does
it tend to lower him/her in the
estimation of public members
o( Bar and adversely affect the
discharge of his/her judicial F
functions?
11. What degree of control does
he/she exercise over the files in
the matter of :
G
a) Proper fixation of cause list
b)Avoidance of unnecessary
adjournments
c) Disposal of old cases
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A 12. Is he/she punctual in coming to
the office and sitting in the
court?
13. Did any incident/incidents,
involving him/her occurred
B during the year which warrants
or . led to, recording of
commendatory/critical remarks
about his I her conduct I
behaviour in relation to such
incident/incidents?
c
14. Is his supervision and
distribution of business among,
and his ,..11ntrol over the
Subordinate Courts Good?
15. Are· his judgments and orders No comments as
D
well written and clearly SAR not sent
expressed?
16. Grading of Judgments
A-Outstanding Average
B-Very Good
E C-Good
D-Average
E-Below Average
17. Other remarks. if any
F
18. Overall assessment as per the
grading given below: Average
A-Outstanding
B-Very Good
C-Good
G · D-Satisfactory
E-Average
F-Poor
19. Convey the following remarks
to the Officer, for his
reply/explanation
H
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 261
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Most of the columns in the annual confidential report were left A
blank. It is obvious, that the petitioner was not assessed for
the columns left blank. In some columns, the Administrative
Judge expressly mentioned, that it was not possible to record
. the remarks on account of the petitioner not having submitted
his "self-assessment report". In five of the columns, the B
Administrative Judge recorded the assessment as "Average".
8. The question that arises for our consideration is,
whether the petitioner can be deemed to have been graded
for the period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 as "Average". It is c
not possible for us to accept the determination of the High
Court, that the aforesaid annual confidential report should be
. treated as an assessment of the work and conduct of the
petitioner. We are satisfied in concluding, that no assessment
whatsoever was made at the hands of the Administrative D
Judge, insofar as the above annual confidential report is
concerned. The same was recorded, on the apparent grouse,
that the petitioner had not submitted his "self-assessment
report". Even though, it was possible for the Administrative
Judge to have filled up a number of columns based on the E
assessment of the judgments, and the record available to him
otherwise, yet merely on account of the fact that the petitioner
had not submitted his "self-assessment report", the
Administrative Judge recorded the "Average" report. The
above report being not a truthful assessment of the various F
constituents of the judicial officer's work and conduct, it could
certainly not be taken as an assessment of his work for the
period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. It may be mentioned
illustratively; that on the basis of the record accessible and
available to the High Court, it was not at all difficult to evaluate G
the petitioner (or for that matter any judicial officer) in respect
of his knowledge of law and procedure, about impressions
during inspection (how he conducts the Court, how he behaves
with advocates and litigants, his clarity and understanding of H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14S.C.R.
A the submissions made at the bar, and whether he is able to
dictate from the dias- at least miscellaneous orders), whether
he is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases, whether he
is an efficient judicial officer. Without any inputs which a judicial
officer would provide in a "self-assessment report", the
B Administrative Judge can also record his views on the judicial
officer's reputation for honesty, integrity and impartiality, and
his assessment about the officers attitude towards his
superiors, subordinates and colleague, as well as, behaviour
toward members of the Bar and public, and also, areas on
C which the judicial officer had been counselled. The "self-
assessment report" would also not be necessary, while
expressing the judicial officers reputation in his private life or
his character in his private life, or for that matter, the estimation
D of the judicial officer in the perception of members of the Bar
and the public. It is therefore apparent, that most of the
columns of the proforma prescribed for recording the annual
confidential report, could have been filled up, without any
difficulty, in absence of the "self-assessment report". The
E annual confidential report being bereft of any assessment of
the work and conduct of the petitioner for the period from
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as no
report, for all intents and purposes. In view of the above
conclusion, it is also imperative for Lis to further hold, that
F treating the work and conduct of the petitioner as "Average"
for the years 201 o, 2011 and 2012 on the basis of the report
for the year 2009 is therefore, also not sustainable in law.
9. The further question, that still remains for our
determination is, whether in the absence of the annual
G confidential report for the year 2009, the order of premature
retirement of the petitioner, would remain sustainable in law. It
was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that since the order of premature retirement of the petitioner,
H was based on the petitioner's work and conduct, for which
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 263
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
reliance was mainly placed on the "Average" report for the year A
2009, the impugned order was liable to be set aside, after the
said report is held to be unsustainable in law.
10. Insofar as the issue of premature retirement of the
petitioner is concerned, it is essential to notice, that the same B
was considered in the background of compl(3.ints made against
him, by members of the Bar, more particularly, Advocates
practicing in the District Consumer Forum, Srinagar, followed
by another complaint, by the elected office bearers of the Bar
Association, Srinagar, who had met the Chief Justice, specially c
in connection with their grievances and allegations against the
petitioner. There was also a complaint at the hands of one
Shyam Lal. In furtherance of the complaint made by the
aforesaid Shyam Lal, the Chief Justice of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court had directed the Registrar(Vigilance) of D
the Jam mu and Kashmir High Court, to conduct a preliminary
enquiry. There were also other complaints which were shown
to us, from the original record. One of the complaints was at
the hands of Nissar Ahamd Khan, who had alleged, that the
petitioner had required him to have his personal laptop of HP E.
brand repaired. The complainant accordingly had got it
repaired from "New A.S. Combines (Regd.)", an authorised
HP service station, for which he had paid Rs.6,500/-, which
the petitioner refused to reimburse. There were also complaints
in respect of disproportionate assets held by the petitioner. F
We are not verifying the veracity of these complaints. We are
merely noticing, that complaints were available in the record
· of the High Court, which could have been, and indeed must
have been, taken into consideration, while taking the decision
to prematurely retire the petitioner. · G
11. In conjunction with the factual position noticed
hereinabove, it is necessary to record, that the Registrar
General of the High Court had telephonically required the
petitioner on 10.09.2012 to meet the Chief Justice of the H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 14 S.C.R.
A Jammu and Kashmir High Court, at his residence, on
11.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m. The record also reveals, that the
petitioner had met with the Chief Justice on the appointed day
and time, and was counselled by the Chief Justice, with
reference to the complaints received by the High Court, against
B the petitioner.
12. The decision to prematurely retire the petitioner, came
up for consideration before the Full Court on 3.6.2013. The
minutes of the Full Court meeting have been placed on the
c record of this case, along with the supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner. A perusal thereof reveals, that the
Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting held
on 21/29.05.2013 had examined the past record, annual
confidential reports, work done statements, and other relevant
o record/material pertaining to the petitioner, and had opined
that he had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. The
Administrative Committee accordingly recommended to the
Full Court, that the petitioner was not fit to continue as District
and Sessions Judge, after the age of 55 years. Based on the
E aforesaid recommendation of the Administrative Committee,
the Full Court discussed the matter on 3.6.2013, and arrived
at its conclusion based on the service record of the officer.
Based on his "Average" report for the year 2009, and in
conjunction with the Full Court Resolution dated 3.6.2013, his
F annual confidential reports for the years 2009 to 2012 were
also treated as "Average". As such, he was not considered
suitable, to be continued in service. Since we have already
declared the annual confidential report for the year 2009, as
no report in the eyes of law, and as such, nonest; none of the
G said reports of the petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012)
could have been taken into consideration for the purpose of
passing the order of premature retirement.
13. In addition to the above, the Full Court in its meeting
H dated 3.6.2013 recorded as under:
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 265
KASHMIR [JAGOISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
'The Full Court has echoed the feeling that the officer is A
incorrigible and it is not in the public interest to continue
him in service as credible complaints with regard to his
judicial conduct keep pouring in. The officer has lost
utility and has become deadwood."
B
It is apparent, that in addition to the annual .confidential reports,
it was concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and that,
it was not in public interest to continue him in service. It was
also recorded,. that credible complaints with regard to his
judicial work were being received periodically. On the basis c
of the above consideration, it was felt that the officer had lost
his utility, and had become deadwood. Based on the aforesaid
determination, the Full Court accepted the recommendation
of the Administrative Committee on 11.6.2013. The Full Court's
decision to prematurely retire the petitioner, was forwarded to D
the Government for approval. On 7.10.2013, the Cabinet
approved the recommendations made by the High Court. On
11.1.2014, the Governor of the State of Jam mu and Kashmir,
accorded his approval, to the premature retirement of the
petitioner. It is therefore, that the petitioner was issued an order E
dated 24.1.2014, intimating him of his premature retirement
on attaining the age of 55 years.
14. Having given our thoughtful consideration, to the
consideration of the Full Court, in respect of material other F
than the annual confidential report for the year 2009 (and of
the years 2010 to 2012), we are of the view, that there was
sufficient material justifying the premature retirement of the.
petitioner in terms of Rule 24, extracted hereinabove, specially
when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court G
resolution dated 3.6.2013. It may be noted that there cannot
be concrete evidence in respect of allegations pertaining to
integrity. If the competent authority arrives at a justifiable
conclusion, on the basis of the record .available in connection
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R.
A therewith, that itself would be sufficient to order the premature
retirement of the concerned individual.
15. Herein it is apparent, that based on the complaints
received against the petitioner, the Chief Justice of the High
B Court of Jam mu and Kashmair, afforded him an audience on
11.09.2012. The Chief Justice counselled the petitioner, with
reference to the complaints received against him. Few of the
complaints received against the petitioner, have been referred
to above. The complaints expressed aspersions on the
c petitioner's financial dealings, and also, in respect of the
petitioner's conduct during court proceedings. The petitioner's
conduct was adversely commended upon by the members of
the Bar of the District Consumer Forum, Srinagar, and by the
Bar Association, Srinagar. A clear reflection that his behaviour
D with advocates and members of the Bar Association was
improfessional and/or indiscreet. There were vigilance
enquiries pending against the petitioner. Besides all this, it is
necessary to notice, that even though we have set aside the
annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2009,
E since it was based on the non-submission of the "self-
assessment report" by the petitioner, it is necessary to record,
that the non-submission of the "self-assessment report" by the
petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and temperament. A
perusal of the note of the Administrative Judge dated
F 29.5.2013 (extracted above) reveals, that the officer was
adamant about not submitting the "self-assessment report".
The stand of the petitioner before us was, that the "self-
assessment report", was to be furnished to the District Judge,
G who would then forward it to the Administrative Judge. This
position adopted by the petitioner cannot be accepted, in view
of the clear instructions circulated by the High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir, to all Additional District Judge Courts, on
4.9.1995. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the above circular are
H relevant and are being extracted below:
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 267
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
"3. Jhe self assessment form should be completed by A
the Officer reported upon and submitted by him to his
District Judge, along with the 12 months' statements of
the work done for the whole year, before 28'h February
in the year following the pedod of reporting.
B
4. In case the Officer reported upon happens to be Addi.
District Judge/District Judge the self assessment form,
duly completed in all respects, along with the 12 monthly
statements of the work done for the whole year, shall be
.submitted by the officer reported upon to the Private c
Secretary of the Administrative Judge concerned/
Registrar, High Court before 28'h February of the year
following the period of reporting."
Paragraph 4 shows, that the position adopted by the petitioner . D
is patently incorrect. That apart, the petitioner was repeatedly
addressed letters by the Administrative Judge (dated,
11.10.2012 and 24.5.2013) as is apparent from the note dated
29.5.2013, but the petitioner remained stead fast in his resolve
not to furnish the "self-assessment report" to the Administrative E
Judge. This also reveals his behaviour, which has relevance
to the annual confidential report - specially the aspects
referable to all serial nos. 7,9 and 13, i.e., his attitue towards
his superiors. All this was also duly concerned, when the
petitioner was recommended by the Administrative Committee F
for premature retirement on 21/23.5.2013. The matter was
thereafter considered by the Full Court of the High Court. On
· each of the aforesaid considerations, the issue of incorrigibility
of the petitioner was sought to be reiterated.
G
16. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that
the determination recorded in the minutes of the Full Court on
3.6.2013 (even if we were to exclude the consideration based
on the annual confidential report for the year 2009), were
sufficient to justify the order of premature cetirement of the H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R.
A petitioner. We therefore hereby uphold the order of premature
retirement of the petitioner dated 3.6.2013/24.1.2014.
17. During the course of hearing, we were informed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the retiral benefits
8 of the petitioner, ~ad not yet been released to him. If the
petitioner has submitted all papers connected to his pension,
we direct the High Court to process and pay the petitioner all
his retiral benefits within four months. In case, the petitioner
has not submitted his pension papers, he may do so within
c two weeks from today, in which eventuality, he shall be released
all his retiral benefits, within four months from the date of
submission of all his pension papers.
18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Writ Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "premature retirement"Sign in to search